Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Footkerchief]

I do have to complain about it. It's a waste of my time, and for what? To prove that what's already there, was actually written, to people who weren't paying attention in the first place?

The purpose is that you presumably want people to understand your point.  Sometimes people forget points that were raised pages and days ago.  If you're categorically unwilling to repeat yourself, then you probably shouldn't be surprised if people decide that listening to you isn't productive.

Footkerchief: You for one, of anybody on these Forums, should have some conception of how it feels to have to repeat information.

Yup.  It feels like my duty as a participant in a discussion.

This is your first post in this thread:

I'd just like to point out that the recent near-to-total gutting of the DF Wiki section on modding is particularly annoying.

I don't understand why whoever's managing the Wiki couldn't simply replace old section with updated ones, in a piecemeal fashion, instead of simply wiping large portions of (often still very useful, if not always 100% accurate) information, research, and charts--some of which represent years of work and testing.

It actually serves to compound the problem of old information being inaccurate, instead of helping things, because there's no chance to extrapolate from, or compare, new information to the old.

Gibberish, inside jokes, and misleading information, sprinkled on, say, 50-75% accurate, useful data, is infinitely preferrable to blank pages of nothing. It isn't even labled "Under Construction".

If it ever even is updated, I can absolutely guarantee that the timeframe for the update--and the level of accuracy--will both be unnecessarily extended (no data to build on), and compromised (less testers overall, doing superfluous testing), by this strategy.

I'm still not seeing the connection between this and your point about the maybe-admins being "less than calm, understanding, or helpful."

[SirHoneyBadger]

It's pretty important to know where your information is coming from, I think.

It's also important to know who is, and who isn't, a person with the authority to represent the very thing you're trying to discuss and improve.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Yup.  It feels like my duty as a participant in a discussion.

You might have some kind of point, in a hundred-page thread, or if the discussion was going on in an entirely different part of the Forum. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for anyone who can't read back a handful of pages, but whatever.

I'll start with this, since, apparently, Mason11987 is some kind of admin.

Mason11987: I thought it had been wiped out. It was very unclear that it hadn't been, and not just to me. That was the point of my original post.
And there's a hard to find link on the main page. It was even harder to find before. It's since been improved, but that's because people have asked for it to be improved. Again, not just me. 

Someone should have just pointed it out, yes. Clearly. 

Out of context, what does "Ctrl-F Archive" mean? In other words, if noone tells you what it does--that that's how to find that information--then you aren't going to know. Again, that's the point.
Not that it's hard to do, provided you already know exactly what you need to, to make it work. It's really easy to speak Japanese, if you happen to be fluent in it. The point is that not everyone knows everything.

And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post. 

As far as being critical: only towards the choice to delete things on a large scale, before there was anything to take the place of that information, and then the absense of clear directions to finding the old information. The Wiki doesn't work by osmosis, or divine grace. If there aren't clear instructions, then it shouldn't be assumed that visitors will automatically decypher what they're supposed to be doing.

I'm entirely supportive of the efforts to both help, and to maintain the Wiki in the first place.

In your browser, Ctrl-F does a "find" on the page, so you can find the archive link if you can't look around the page.  It was a half-joke.

"And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post.  "

There isn't any opposition to making things easier.  There is opposition to saying "you got rid of things" or "there isn't any way to find it" which are the kind of things you're saying.

The way I think we'd wish people would go is say "where is this?" not "you got rid of everything".  We obviously think it's easy to find or we would have done something different.  If you point out it isn't easy to find, or that you can't find it without so much criticism then we can work to fix it.  The fact that you think we're against improving it is why you're getting this response from me. 

We ARENT against it, and we try very hard to improve it, but when we are attacked by people who don't even attempt the minimal effort (you didn't even look on the main page when you were TOLD it was there) and then those people tell US we don't care?  It's a little frustrating.

The old information wasn't particularly easy to find for maybe a week?  It's pretty easy to find now with minimal effort.  Or if you disagree then tell us how to fix it.  It's hard to meet your requirements for "ease of use" when you don't say what would meet that requirement.

The wiki isn't going to be exactly the same with regard to 40d as it was previously because a new release came out.  It's never going to again be EXACTLY the same.  If that's what you're looking for then I guess we won't meet your requiremetns.  But if you want something less then everything for nothing then please offer specific suggestions.

You missed the entire point of my last post.  You said you'd offer more concrete suggestions.  You haven't offered one.

This isn't an attack. It's a criticism that you're treating as an attack, which goes some way towards justifying my claim of opposition.

And yes, I did look at the main page, repeatedly.

Once again from the top: I couldn't find what I was looking for. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many times do other people? It was confusing. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

As far as suggestions go, I've made several already in this thread.

[Locriani]

Ok, this has gotten too far out of hand.

We're now proceeding to see which admins have said what and where, instead of focusing on HOW we can improve the wiki, given the limitations of the current wiki engine.

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

You have to remember, without tone of voice, you have to assume best intentions or else any discussion will devolve into a mess.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Ok, this has gotten too far out of hand.

We're now proceeding to see which admins have said what and where, instead of focusing on HOW we can improve the wiki, given the limitations of the current wiki engine.

Which is another reason I didn't particularly want to bring it back up...

[Footkerchief]

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information.  Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information.  Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.

So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?

[Locriani]

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information.  Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.

So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?

I have requested this thread be closed.  I will no longer be participating in any discussion in this thread, if you want to actually discuss this topic, use the wiki page.

[G-Flex]

Ok, this has gotten too far out of hand.

We're now proceeding to see which admins have said what and where, instead of focusing on HOW we can improve the wiki, given the limitations of the current wiki engine.

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

You have to remember, without tone of voice, you have to assume best intentions or else any discussion will devolve into a mess.

Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.

For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information.  Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.

So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?

[Draco18s]

For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information.  Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.

So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?

And incredibly difficult to find new "posts"?

[G-Flex]

There's a reason why people have been trying to create mock-ups of a better discussion page/thread style, and why Locriani is trying to write new wiki software and abandon mediawiki entirely.

[Draco18s]

There's a reason why people have been trying to create mock-ups of a better discussion page/thread style, and why Locriani is trying to write new wiki software and abandon mediawiki entirely.

Oh yeah, I know.  I'm all for that project.  Just the wiki as it is does not have that functionality which is why I like the forum.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Um. This isn't exactly a flamewar, Locriani. If you can't handle the conversation, that's fine, but don't ruin it for everyone.

[Footkerchief]

And incredibly difficult to find new "posts"?

Oh yeah, I know.  I'm all for that project.  Just the wiki as it is does not have that functionality which is why I like the forum.

This point, while accurate, is further evidence that the thread is no longer for discussing the inclusion of real-world information (useful for Locriani to read), but for unproductive complaints about MediaWiki and administrators (not useful for Locriani to read).

[G-Flex]

There's a reason why people have been trying to create mock-ups of a better discussion page/thread style, and why Locriani is trying to write new wiki software and abandon mediawiki entirely.

Oh yeah, I know.  I'm all for that project.  Just the wiki as it is does not have that functionality which is why I like the forum.

Er. Then the solution is to continue work on the wiki, not to abandon it. You've made it clear (on the wiki) that you aren't even really sure how the current system works, so I don't know why you're complaining so much anyway. Maybe instead of getting mad you should have spent two and a half seconds finding the "watch" button at the top of the page, or asking someone.